6.  The applicant, Mr I. D., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Cricova prison.
7.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of theft. The next day an investigating judge ordered his detention for a period of ten days.
8.  During detention the applicant was allegedly beaten on a regular basis by police officers with a view to extracting confessions. According to the applicant, he was beaten all over his body with rubber batons, administered electric shocks, suspended on a metal bar and suffocated.
9.  During the seventh day of his detention he was taken to the office of B.R. and L.C. where he was cuffed and raped with a bottle. One of the police officers was photographing him during this time.
10.  On 24 October 2003 the applicant was taken to a judge for the prolongation of his detention. The judge ordered the applicant's examination by a doctor.
11.  The same day the applicant was visually examined by a forensic doctor who found numerous bruises on his body and limbs and concluded that they could have been caused by a blunt object with a limited surface, possibly in the circumstances indicated by the applicant.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Prosecutor's Office about his ill-treatment at the hands of the police.
13.  On 2 May 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Prosecutor General's Office on 27 February 2007.
14.  In the meantime the applicant was detained in four different detention facilities of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.
15.  Between the date of his arrest and 23 October 2004 the applicant was detained in the DGCCO detention facility. He was then transferred to the Botanica Police Station where he was detained for twenty-three days. Between November 2004 and December 2005 the applicant was detained in Prison no. 13. Subsequently he was transferred to the Soroca Prison where he was detained until 6 February 2006. Between 6 February and October 2006 the applicant was again detained in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. After that he was transferred to the Cricova Prison, where he is detained to date.
16.  According to the applicant the conditions of detention in all the detention facilities amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In respect of the DGCCO detention facility the applicant did not describe the conditions of detention but only made reference to the Court's Ostrovar v. Moldova judgment (no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005) in which the conditions were described. As to the Botanica Police Station, the applicant submitted that the conditions were similar to those in the DGCCO detention facility with the exception that the cells were in the basement and were not equipped with windows. In respect of his first detention in Prison no. 13, the applicant submitted that an important aspect had been his frequent transfer from one cell to another, which, in his view, amounted of itself to inhuman and degrading treatment. Moreover, the cells were overcrowded, poorly lit and humid. The prisoners were not provided with bedding and had no laundry facilities. As to the conditions in the Soroca prison, the applicant submitted that the cells were overcrowded and humid. In respect of the Cricova prison, the applicant complained about the conditions there for the first time in his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in January 2010 and only about the period between October and December 2006 when he had been detained in an overcrowded cell with no heating. The Government disputed the applicant's description of his conditions of detention.
17.  During his second detention in Prison no. 13 the applicant suffered from haemorrhoids and a urinary tract disorder. On 13 September 2006 he underwent surgery to his anus by an independent doctor of his choice. According to the applicant, he had to bear the costs of the surgery and medication. After approximately two weeks he was transferred from hospital back to Prison no. 13 where the cell was not appropriately equipped for a person in his state of health. He had to climb to the upper berth several times a day, which contributed to post-surgery complications. He was not provided with an enema, the toilet in the cell lacked a rim and he was unable to take care of his personal hygiene.
18.  According to the medical documents provided by the parties it appears that following complaints by the applicant about pain in the region of his bladder and difficulty in urinating he was seen by two independent urologists in October 2006 who recommended a medical examination of his kidneys, prostate and urinary tract. The investigation was conducted in a prison hospital in December 2006 and, according to the medical documents in the Court's possession, the applicant was found to be healthy.